On Jul 9, 2006, at 8:27 PM, new.morning wrote: --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 9, 2006, at 1:01 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
"Second, of course, "anti-TMer" is an entirely legitimate label for those who, like Barry and Vaj and Curtis, routinely attack the TMO, MMY, and TMers (individually or as a group)."
Since I have been on this group I have heard far more criticism coming from others, some of whom practice TM.
This is my observation as well. It's actually quite bizarre to see-- the "defenders of the faith" end up being perfect reasons *not* to start TM. In fact they may be part of the decline, esp. since there are other outlets now (some more detailed and fuller paths) of manasika japa, sans canned checking routines and insane prices for basic meditation instruction.
Other than responding to things others have put up I have not initiated any criticisms of TM. This designation of "anti-Tmer" is a stupid label in a group where most of the posters couldn't get into the dome.
It's also stupid because I'm sure many of us don't see TM as a bad thing or as a bad meditation technique, but not merely as a 'be all and end all' that it is marketed as. At a certain time when the naivete was high on "things eastern" and there were not a lot of alternatives, this was palatable. Now it's simply silly.
Thats why labeling, particualry incorrect labeling, is simply silly.
Someone calls someone a True Beleiver. As I have observed, the labels are often incorrect. Regardless, when labels are hurled, particualry pejorative and/or false ones, a barrage of labels are often hurled back. Silly again. But then each side gets really entrenched. Defending positions. Then it gets really silly.
It's a term I use fairly infrequently, and usually for brevity's sake. I realize some people have the time or interest to write long responses or relentless and endless posting on topics, I generally do not have such an interest. It seems a waste of time. I prefer conciseness. I've certainly written little on this current topic, so this is a rather specious claim on your part.
For example, as I have stated, IMO people like Judy, Vaj, Shemp, etc do not fit the TB mold. In so many ways. To call them TB's is either quite weak thinking or purposefully inflamatory.
And I don't think you, or Unc, and certainly not rational critics like Ken H or Rick A etc., as TM haters. As you say [you] "don't see TM as a bad thing or as a bad meditation technique, but not merely as a 'be all and end all' that it is marketed as." I have seen some real TM haters out there, often this can be a trnsitional phase, and none of you guys fit that profile.
Yes, I'd agree.
I do recommend people who have an interest in a Hindu type of meditation to pursue techniques the same as TM, but NOT TM.
If you want, as we all want, less inflamatory slug fests (in contrast to passionate, yet reasoned views which are great), then stop with the lablels aka name calling. Its ineffective when the labels are correct, but outlandishly counterproductive when they are false and/or inflamatory.
If you really cared about the movement you would encourage them to correct stupid misleading charts instead of defending their stupid misleading charts.
You know it's funny how fundamentalists defend their religions. Fundie X-tians will quote scripture and verse after verse after verse. TM fundies cite pseudoscience, use charts of questionable veracity and quote scientific research.
There you go again. No current regular posters are "fundamentalists", parallel to "Fundie X-tians", "TM fundies". A true fundamentalist is a sight to behold. Someone who believes literally that the universe was created 6000 years ago and Eve came out of Adams rib. While I don't always agree with Judy, Spraig, etc, they clearly are thinking, quetioning entities, not bound by the dictates of some literal interpretation of anceint scripture. In your view, do you think either holds a literalist view on the Laws of Manu or the Puranas?
You are mistaking a literalist for a fundamentalist. Not all fundamentalists are literalists, but many are. In this instance let me be a little more precise: TM Fundamentalism is strict maintenance of fundamental doctrines of the ideology of TM, in this case TM, SCI, Maharishi's Vedic Science and other TM doctrine, including the extensive use of a scientific mythos and reliance on scientific jargon. This may often take the form of pseudoscientific literature and diagrams used as marketing PR and marketing spin ("TM tracts").
At a certain point I realized this was the same phenomenon.
And you thought weakly.
See the above. These are very parallel phenomenon but they are not identical phenomenon. This similarity becomes even more apparent when you actually see the political parties and streams of thought Mahesh Varma is associated with in his native country. It is also helpful to understand the parallels (and differences) between Vedic Science and Creation Science. These *are* parallel movements. I also would predict this hurdle would be the last some indoctrinated in TM-think would be willing to make. I certainly know it was a shocker for me.
But in my world none of that matters.
Then why does your world constantly sling labels at others? Maybe you should ask the person who said this as this is not my quote!
__._,_.___
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
![]()
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
__,_._,___
|
